Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Woityra v. State

213 Ga. App. 89 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Woityra v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. Stinson v. State

    569 S.E.2d 858 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 6 times

    OCGA § 24-2-3(b). See Woityra v. State, 213 Ga. App. 89 (1) ( 443 S.E.2d 867) (1994). PHIPPS, Judge.

  2. Green v. State

    240 Ga. App. 774 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 32 times

    (Punctuation omitted.) Woityra v. State, 213 Ga. App. 89(1) ( 443 S.E.2d 867) (1994). 4.

  3. Brown v. State

    504 S.E.2d 452 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 12 times

    (Citation omitted.) Woityra v. State, 213 Ga. App. 89 (1) ( 443 S.E.2d 867) (1994). A trial court does not commit error where it refuses to give a confusing or misleading instruction, such as Brown's Request to Charge No. 1.Jones v. State, 200 Ga. App. 519, 521 (2) (c) ( 408 S.E.2d 823) (1991).

  4. Pryor v. State

    497 S.E.2d 805 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 8 times

    Further, Tom Tolksdorf's admission that he inadvertently misidentified the service station's trade name in his written statement to the police did not authorize a charge on impeachment. See Woityra v. State, 213 Ga. App. 89 (1) ( 443 S.E.2d 867). And even if Tolksdorf's admission had supported a charge on impeachment, defendant waived his right to such a charge by failing to file a timely written request to charge on the subject of impeachment. Wallace v. State, 216 Ga. App. 718, 720 (4) ( 455 S.E.2d 615). Defendant Kelly's second and third enumerations of error are thus without merit.

  5. Wingfield v. State

    229 Ga. App. 75 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 7 times

    We are unable to consider the correctness of the requests since Wingfield provided no cited authority for the requested charges, despite being given the opportunity to present such authority. See Woityra v. State, 213 Ga. App. 89 (1) ( 443 S.E.2d 867) (1994); Doughty v. State, 175 Ga. App. 317, 322 (7) ( 333 S.E.2d 402) (1985). Wingfield has cited no authority, and we can find no authority, for the proposition that an otherwise free and voluntary statement is limited to a specific crime or event.

  6. Smith v. State

    491 S.E.2d 519 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)

    The trial court therefore did not err in denying defendant's request to charge on the "equal access" defense. See Woityra v. State, 213 Ga. App. 89 (1) ( 443 S.E.2d 867). Judgment affirmed. Beasley and Smith, JJ., concur.

  7. Scott v. State

    490 S.E.2d 104 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 2 times

    ]" (Emphasis omitted.) Woityra v. State, 213 Ga. App. 89 (1) ( 443 S.E.2d 867) (1994). A trial court does not commit error where it refuses to give a confusing or misleading instruction, Jones v. State, 200 Ga. App. 519, 521 (2) (c) ( 408 S.E.2d 823) (1991), or where the substance of the requested charge is covered in the instructions given by the trial court.